CTFR 18/913,222 CTFR 87653 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Amendment This action is responsive to applicant's amendment and remarks received on 03/06/2026. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 4 recites, in limitation (ii), "a difference between the first distance and the second distance exceeds a predetermined difference threshold for the difference between the first distance and the second distance." Independent claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, already recites that "the second distance is larger than the first distance and a difference between the second distance and the first distance exceeds a threshold." It is therefore unclear whether the "difference between the first distance and the second distance" recited in claim 4 is the same as, or different from, the "difference between the second distance and the first distance" already recited in claim 1, particularly because claim 4 reintroduces the difference using the indefinite article "a." It is further unclear whether the "predetermined difference threshold" of claim 4 is the same as, or different from, the "threshold" of claim 1 against which that same difference is already compared. Because claim 4 depends from claim 1, the condition of claim 1 (the difference exceeding "a threshold") must already be satisfied; the relationship between that condition and the additional condition of claim 4 (the difference exceeding "a predetermined difference threshold") cannot be ascertained. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised, with reasonable certainty, of the metes and bounds of the claim — specifically, whether the difference is to be compared against a single threshold or two distinct thresholds, and how any such thresholds relate. Appropriate clarification is required. Response to Arguments Applicant's amendments to claim 1 and accompanying remarks have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1–5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Baba (US 2017/0294124 A1) in view of Rosenbaum (US 2018/0215333 A1) is withdrawn. The reasons for the indicated allowability are set forth below. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1–3, 5, and 6 are allowable over the prior art of record. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth above (necessitated by amendment) and would be allowable if amended to overcome that rejection, for example as suggested below. 13-03 AIA The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of record does not teach or suggest, alone or in combination, a vehicle control device in which the processor acquires a first distance to the stationary object from the distance measuring sensor and a second distance to the moving object from the monocular camera based on the position of the moving object's image in the vertical direction of the imaging range, and, when the first condition and the second condition are both satisfied and the second distance is larger than the first distance by more than a threshold, controls the priority of the second warning processing over the first warning processing based on (i) a feature amount that is the amount of change in the position of the moving object's image in relation to the amount of change in the size of the moving object's image when the image moves downward and expands within the imaging range, and (ii) whether the feature amount exceeds a predetermined value. While the prior art of record discloses acquiring distances to objects from both a distance measuring sensor and a monocular camera and issuing distance-based warnings, it does not teach or suggest using the recited feature amount, namely the relationship between the change in vertical position and the change in size of the moving object's image, in combination with a discrepancy between the camera-derived second distance and the sensor-derived first distance, as the basis for prioritizing the moving-object warning over the stationary-object warning. This combination, recited in claim 1 as a whole, would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art . Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Allowable Subject Matter To overcome the §112(b) rejection set forth above and place the application in condition for allowance, applicant is invited to amend claim 4 as follows (this amendment has not been entered): Claim 4. The vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the first condition is satisfied when the first distance is equal to or less than a first threshold, the second condition is satisfied when the second distance is equal to or less than a second threshold, and the processor is configured to temporarily change the first threshold and the second threshold so that only the second condition is satisfied when [[: (i)]] the feature amount exceeds the predetermined value , and (ii) a difference between the first distance and the second distance exceeds a predetermined difference threshold for the difference between the first distance and the second distance . Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS whose telephone number is (571)270-7838. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 10am to 5pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571) 272-3114. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2685 /QUAN ZHEN WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/913,222 Page 2 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/913,222 Page 3 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/913,222 Page 4 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/913,222 Page 5 Art Unit: 2685 Application/Control Number: 18/913,222 Page 6 Art Unit: 2685
Prosecution Insights